Forum talk:Keeping the Monaco Skin
There isn't currently a comments section, and I wasn't too sure if it'd be a good idea to create one, given the somewhat unorthodox nature of this particular "Policy" proposal, so here's the thing: Seems to me that, if we want to call it a formal petition, it needs to look like a formal petition. As such, and since people tell me I can write real purty, I typed up a bit of something, which can be found here. As I was going for the whole "formal" look, it uses some bits of needless finery and frills, such as "We the undersigned", fancy big words and such, and a fancy respectful closing. If it looks okay to everybody, maybe we can attach it to this before it gets forwarded? Also note that I only listed a few grievances, and sort of paraphrased them, so if they can be made more accurate, or if there are any other big ones that can be included (bearing in mind that it isn't intended as an all-inclusive list), please let me know on the talk page for the petition. And, if youse guys think it's too pretentious or stuffy and don't want to use it, well, that's fine too. I'll just cry myself to sleep. :P SpartHawg948 08:26, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :Looks good there, and I almost signed there (and possibly be on the receiving end of Spart's wrath!) Although I must say that at I highly doubt we will ever get to keep Monaco. What I'm hoping at least is they address the most voiced concerns about the new skin. That would keep almost everyone happy. — Teugene (Talk) 09:07, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd be cool with people signing there, but given that there are already 8 signatures here, (with more hopefully on the way!) I don't expect everyone who signed here to sign there as well, which is why I figured just attaching this to the current signatures (likely be simply using it to replace everything above the signatures section) is the best option. SpartHawg948 09:13, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah I kind of messed up on that didn't I. I do like Spart's more formal petition and that is what I'd thought we'd come up with later then transfer the signatures over. I guess I didn't think it all the way through. Lancer1289 13:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Since the creator of this policy proposal apparently forgot to put an 'Against' section, an innocent mistake I'm sure, and not an attempt to hide dissent from Wikia, I wanted to note here that I oppose this motion and that this self-important mob needs to grow up. Why are we jumping straight to a petition to stop the new skin? How about maybe forwarding our suggestions for improvement, or a request for an extension of the time before we have to switch over, or an extended period where users can opt-''in'' to the new skin to evaluate it and format pages for the new skin before new users see it? No, we jump straight to "WE DONT WANT TO USE IT1!!!111! IT SUX!11!". JakePT 09:28, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :I don't think it was an innocent mistake, nor do I think that there was nefarious intent. After all, the stated goal of this page is to serve as the basis for a petition that is explicitly dedicated to keeping the Monaco Skin available for use. As such, it doesn't follow standard format. And last I checked, you generally don't put "Against" sections on petitions. Kind of defeats the purpose... :Also, please note that (to the best of my knowledge), nobody is trying to "stop the new skin", a point I made clear in the proposed text for the petition, which merely asks that individual wikis be given the option of choosing whether to use the new version or the old one. No one is acting "self-important" or mobbish (inflammatory terms if ever I've heard them), nor is anyone screaming "WE DONT WANT TO USE IT1!!!111! IT SUX!11!" Allegations like that are disingenuous, to say the least. The last thing this issue needs is anyone ramping up the rhetoric to these levels. SpartHawg948 09:34, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Seeing as the petition is being sent, for all intents and purposes, on behalf of the wiki, I do think it's disingenuous to ignore any internal opposition. Usually petitions don't have this issue because they're isolated in a way that it's clear it's only being sent on behalf of the people who signed it. In this case, being drafted on the wiki policy forum, failing to note that not everyone on the wiki supports it is misleading. ::Also, I'd be much more inclined to believe this wasn't some knee jerk overreaction if I hadn't seen the exact same thing happen every, and I mean every, time something has changed like this somewhere on the web. Every. Single. Time. A mob of people get all mad, start petitions and plan boycotts. It's happens exactly the same time every time and it always ends the same way. The change happens, people calm down, then a few years down the track another change is planned and people react the same way all over again. ::Look at this list of comments: ::*Frankly, the horrible decisions wikia staff has been making time after time leaves them wide open to abuse and insults. ::*I like the way it is now! Now I have to get used to it and I just know how to get around this one because it's easy and cool. Keep it the same! ::*I don't know what to say about the new style design that I haven't already said to those who have asked me. I don't think it is visually appealing at all. ::*I think it looks terrible, the way it disrupts the article's layout. ::*What a crock of s***. ::*The new change is awful and is not going to please anyone. ::*F*** up! ::*Now Way! I like the way it is now! Now I have to get used to it and I just know how to get around this one because it's easy and cool. ::*you're gonna drive users away. stop being tools. ::*The Bottom Line Of it is that it will ruin the visibility of the wikis. It doesn't matter how it effects each users custom settings, the people wikia are screwing over are the causal viewer of the wikis, people who don't have accounts and have no control over the s*** wikia is throwing into their face, the people who WE made the wikis FOR. ::*Freaking Terrible it is. First of all, this new version of Monaco is horrible. ::*At this point we are planning to vote with our feet. ::*I hate it. ::*This would make reading pages PURE INSANITY! ::*Seeing how now Wikia's gonna try and dictate how what we create should be done, I think I should start moving. ::*Put this on us and we are leaving. Thats right, gone. And we have this crazy intution that our disappearence would leave wikia royally screwed. So think about it, Cherry'O! ::See here and here. ::Sound familiar? Nope, that's the anger from the last time wikia changed. Same **** Different Day. Forgive me for not taking it seriously this time. That last comment? Halopedia threatening to leave wikia, two years ago. Who are they with now. Let me check. Oh yeah.JakePT 10:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Which is why I was careful to note in the (admittedly as-yet unadopted) written supplement that the petition only represents those whose signatures it bears, precisely as you describe above: "Usually petitions don't have this issue because they're isolated in a way that it's clear it's only being sent on behalf of the people who signed it." Nowhere is it claimed that it represents the entirety of the wiki, nor are you in any way barred from sending your own petition of solidarity with the proposed change. :::And I now see where you are coming from on the self-important mob comment. Before your last post, however, no context was given (i.e. you didn't specify thart you were referring to comments made on other sites), and given the placement of the comments on this talk page with no context, I was (understandably) under the mistaken idea that the comments (or "rhetoric", as I termed it) was in reference to what we here had been saying. Comments like "I wanted to note here that I oppose this motion and that this self-important mob needs to grow up.", made without pointing out that the self-important mob in question (though called this self-important mob) is on another site altogether is a bit confusing, to say the least. My apologies for the misunderstanding. SpartHawg948 10:16, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::I wouldn't send my own petition in solidarity, because I don't wholeheartedly support the change, I just don't like the immediate, knee-jerk, opposition to anything new. While it's admittedly better articulated here, I feel it is the same attitude driving it that drove that list of comments I gave. I find it very disappointing, though not at all surprising, that the fact that the first attempt at an 'official' comment from this wiki was to say "No" to any change in the form of a petition, as opposed to something more constructive and mature.JakePT 10:30, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::But again, you seem to be misconstruing the point of all this. I can assure you that my reaction is anything but knee-jerk, and again, the drive here is not to stop anything, or to (as you put it) "say "No" to any change". It's simply to say "Hey, we know you meant well, and there are sure to be people who do want this, but there are also people who don't. Don't steamroll over us like we aren't even here. Let us choose for ourselves." I can't think of anything more mature and constructive than good, reasoned, well articulated dissent. After all, the editors involved here are merely attempting to express their opinions. Was there something specific you had in mind? SpartHawg948 10:35, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yeah since I created it, you really don't put a oppose part of the petition and since I put a note about that on the page. This is different from previously policy pages and it's point was to collect signatures and be more formal, but I messed up on that part a little didn't I. I had no nefarious intent, I was just looking out for the interests of the community. Lancer1289 13:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC) Just an example of what others are doing... As was mentioned in one of the blogs on this subject, our friends over at The Vault have also started a forum proposing a petition. Here it is if anyone wants to take a peek: Wikia's New Look SpartHawg948 09:57, September 29, 2010 (UTC) Sooo... Here's a thought... when are we going to send this bad boy in? We currently have 11 signatures, and while I'd like to see more, we are under a bit of a crunch here as far as time is concerned... SpartHawg948 21:33, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah I have to say send it off. We have both admins, and several heavy editors. I think it will get the point across. I hope. Lancer1289 22:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC) In that case, I took the liberty of adding the formal text I drafted to the forum, above the signatures. If, however, this is deemed inappropriate at this time or whatever, feel free to undo it. SpartHawg948 22:19, October 4, 2010 (UTC)